The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Brian Cowen, and Green Party TD, John Gormley, argue for and against the Nice Treaty.

It's a bad deal for Ireland and Europe

By John Gormley

The Nice Treaty is a bad deal for Ireland and, more importantly perhaps, a bad deal for Europe. The partnership of equals which we joined in 1973 -- and which has undoubtedly brought benefits to this country -- is now being set aside for a new EU, where the bigger states will dominate.

It is an important step in the creation of a federal superstate to which France and Germany, in particular, aspire.

Proponents of this treaty have argued that Nice is first and foremost about enlargement. This is simply untrue -- as a cursory examination of the treaty will reveal.

Under the Amsterdam Treaty, the EU could already increase from 15 to 20 members. If we vote `no' to Nice, this enlargement can still take place, without the accompanying provisions, which make Nice unacceptable.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Brian Cowen, gives the impression that his heart bleeds for the Poles, Czechs and Hungarians and other applicant countries that seek EU membership. They have, he says, suffered for years under Communist rule and they deserve the sort of break that we got in 1973. On the face of it, that all sounds very laudable, but how many of these countries will join the EU if we vote `yes' by the time of the next treaty in 2004? The answer: probably none of them.

The Green Party very much supports enlargement, but why not do it now? Even when the applicant countries are accepted at some future date, there will be a seven-year moratorium on the acceptance of their migrant workers. The message to these countries is plain: we want your markets but not your workers.

The Attorney General, outlining his reasons why a referendum on the treaty was required, made no mention of enlargement. The major concerns surrounded the enhanced cooperation provisions in the treaty. These will enable states to make their own political arrangements within the EU. This is a very significant departure for the EU and will create a new VIP club within the club. A two-speed -- or two-tier -- Europe has often been mooted in the past; with Nice it becomes a reality.

The enhanced cooperation provisions are subject to the new qualified majority voting arrangements where Ireland will again end up the loser. At present, Ireland has three votes out of 83 in the Council of Ministers -- that's 3.6 per cent of the vote. After 2005 Ireland will have seven votes out of 237 -- or 2.9 per cent of the vote.

Even if there are no new members these arrangements will apply. If there are eventually 27 members, Ireland will have seven votes out of 345 -- or 2.03 per cent of the vote. This represents a total drop in our voting strength of 44 per cent. The comparable decline in Germany's voting strength is 29.3 per cent. No wonder, then, that when the details of the Nice Treaty became known John Bruton said: "It has truthfully been stated that one of the outcomes of Nice was to enhance the position of the bigger states in decision making."

Already Germany's Chancellor Schroeder has suggested the Council of Ministers should become a second chamber in the new federal Europe. Taoiseach Bertie Ahern has asked the Irish people to think about the future shape of Europe after the Nice Treaty -- but we should reflect now on the profound implications of voting `yes'.

We already have a de facto superstate with its own currency and military wing (more of that anon), but with an inequality of votes from each state. Contrast that with the United States of America, where two senators are elected to the US Senate from each state, regardless of its size. We will also lose our automatic right to a commissioner, which John Bruton considered a "serious blow" when it was announced. As well as all this, we also lose our veto in 30 new areas.

Much has been made of the fact that Ireland has retained its independence in relation to tax policy. Indeed this is so, but for how long can this realistically continue? I believe this is probably only a temporary reprieve. The Irish position has caused resentment among our partners, which was partly responsible for the reprimand of Minister McCreevey by his EU colleagues at the ECOFIN meeting.

I believe tax harmonisation will become a reality in the 2004 treaty. And remember, these treaties -- as the Referendum Commission has rightly pointed out -- must be seen as part of a sequence. Already there are proposals emanating from Belgium for an EU-wide defence tax. This would be entirely consistent with the militarisation of the EU, which continues in the Nice Treaty. If Europe is worth defending -- as some may legitimately argue -- then surely it is worth paying for that defence? The minister replies: "Don't worry we're still neutral!"

The minister's neutrality horse has been flogged to death at this stage. How can we be members of the European Rapid Reaction Force and still claim to be neutral? His case for neutrality now seems to rest exclusively on non-membership of Nato.

When I visited Nato headquarters recently I was informed by representatives from Sweden and Finland that they no longer claim to be neutral, because of their European commitments. I have repeatedly put this point to minister Cowen and have yet to receive a satisfactory answer. Nor have I received anything resembling a sensible reply on the question of a United Nations mandate for our forces. Where in the entire Nice Treaty is a reference made to UN mandates? Is there a protocol attached to the treaty insisting on Ireland's right to have a UN mandate?

The difficulty for the government is acute. Nice doesn't have any real selling points. It's a lose/lose situation and they know it. My constituency colleague Ruairi Quinn described Nice as a "disaster" and a "terrible setback" when the details became known. He was absolutely right.

It will give the EU peace and stability.

By Brian Cowen

It is only a decade since we watched the fall of the Berlin Wall being broadcast live on our television screens. We watched in amazement as the people of Berlin literally took the wall apart, brick by brick, and reached across to relatives or friends who had been divided from them by an accident of history.

All over Eastern Europe, dictatorship was toppled and the seeds of democracy were sown.

The Irish people are being asked on June 7 to play their part in bringing peace and stability to the countries of central and eastern Europe, as well as Cyprus and Malta, by voting `yes' to the Treaty of Nice.

The debate on the Treaty has been distorted by the `no' lobby which has focused on issues that are not at all in the Treaty. The Treaty is unequivocally and emphatically about enlargement of the Union and the opportunities it holds for us all: it prepares the way for the most radical expansion in its membership with the accession of up to 12 new countries.

It is most definitely not about a European army or Nato. It is not about the creation of a two-tier Europe or throwing away sovereignty to a European superstate. Neither is it a conspiracy by multinational corporations nor a sinister plot to undermine family values, as some have claimed.

The need for the Treaty of Nice prior to the first enlargement was anticipated in the protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam. The people approved of the Treaty of Amsterdam in a referendum in 1998. The Green Party, which now looks to it as having addressed the issue of enlargement, campaigned against it at the time. The Treaty of Nice which they are now denouncing has been described by their Green colleague Joschka Fischer, the German foreign minister, as a step forward for Europe.

He represented Germany in the negotiations and has the generosity of spirit to acknowledge its merits -- even though Germany's share of votes on the Council of Ministers will drop from 11.49 per cent to 8.41 per cent after enlargement to 27 member states and their representation in the European Parliament will drop from 15.81 per cent to 13.52 per cent at the same time. It is broadly the same story for the other larger member states who are also giving up their second commissioner from 2005.

Enhanced cooperation was introduced in the Treaty of Amsterdam. Ireland's participation in the euro is a form of enhanced cooperation, and demonstrates the potential for Ireland in these sort of arrangements. The Treaty of Nice simply modifies the rules for enhanced cooperation. In the course of the negotiations in Nice last December, the Taoiseach and I secured safeguards to ensure that if eight or more states wish to proceed with enhanced cooperation, the following restrictions apply: it can only be used a last resort, it cannot apply to the single market (which accounts for 80 per cent of EU activity) and cannot proceed in the security and defence area.

The most important criterion, of course, is that every member state has the right to participate in any such group. The `no' lobby has been whipping up fears about enhanced cooperation but has been unable to articulate exactly what it is we should be worried about. They ignore the fact that Ireland has always wanted to play a constructive role in the forefront of European developments and that, as is the case with the euro, we are more likely to be in the vanguard of any group that may emerge at a future date. It will not be possible, as has been claimed, to set up a `club within a club', since Article 43 of the treaty states clearly that any enhanced cooperation must respect "the single institutional framework of the Union".

Talk by the `no' lobby of giving up our neutrality is nothing short of nonsense. The procedure for the Irish government providing any contingents for EU peacekeeping missions will be the very same as the procedure for making them available for UN peacekeeping operations. The people should have no cause for concern on that score.

The Treaty of Nice is fundamental to correcting the current two-tier Europe which we have inherited from two world wars, and grants Europe the prospect of securing the peace and stability which eluded it through much of the last century. A vote against the treaty would be disastrous for Europe and would leave the continent even more divided than the Green Party is on this issue.

In Ireland we export more than 85 per cent of what we produce here. We benefit enormously, therefore, from the internal market of 370 million consumers. Irish entrepreneurs are already making inroads in the emerging markets in central and eastern Europe. With enlargement, that market will jump to 500 million. We are a trading nation, and the message for us is clear: new members mean new markets for Irish exports, and more exports mean more jobs at home.

Many of the candidate countries for EU membership look to Ireland as a model of what they hope to achieve by joining the European Union. I am confident that on June 7 the Irish people will decide to give them the same chance that we were given nearly three decades ago, by voting `yes' to the Nice Treaty. We owe it to them, but we also owe it to ourselves, given the tremendous opportunities enlargement holds for us.

A `yes' vote will be a vote for peace, stability and prosperity across the continent.